ICA diff in cc1 and cc1plus

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 09:43:54 PDT 2007


Manuel brought up a recent regression shown by ICA in cc1 and cc1plus.

http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-February/059037.html

I did some investigation on this. I reproduced it running jhalfs, but
it didn't show up in my own scripts. I've got a few DIY tweaks in
there, so I started testing out things. First, I thought maybe
bison/flex had made themselves needed again, but that didn't seem to
be the case.

Then I remembered one other thing Greg recently tweaked for more purity.

http://www.diy-linux.org/pipermail/diy-linux-dev/2006-December/000967.html

One of the things that currently doesn't happen in the chroot
toolchain adjustment for LFS is making gcc prefer the new headers in
/usr/include. If you add '-v' to the sanity check output, you'll see
that it's still looking in /tools/include.

So, I added in the -isystem /usr/include to the gcc specs. Lo and
behold, there was a difference. I don't know what would cause this
difference. Either something with using the new kernel headers or
something with gcc-4.1.x since this was never an issue before when we
continued using the headers in /tools/include.

Now I think I see the issue. We don't apply the glibc upstream patch
in Ch. 5. This patch touches two headers that may be included into
built sources: features.h and libio.h.

I still have to spin a full build to be sure that this does fix the
regression, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Although it may fix
things to patch glibc in Ch. 5, I'd prefer to make gcc use the headers
in /usr/include. That seems like the right thing to do.

More info as it arrives.

--
Dan



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list